It probably won't help against competitors that use similar designs, though.

Apple has successfully secured a trademark for the design of its retail stores. Trademark protection was applied for in 2010 and granted last week according to documents filed at the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Apple's stores are meticulously designed down to the last detail, including special architectural glass panels (patent pending), floating glass staircases (patented), stainless steel exteriors, and even the lightly colored birch tables on which the arrays of demo iPads and MacBook Pros sit, waiting to be poked and prodded by customers.

Apple has gone to great lengths to protect the designs of its iPhones, iPads, and other products, so it's little surprise that the company wants to extend that protection to the interior design of the Apple Store.

Last year the Chinese government shut down a fake Apple Store in China that seemed so real even the employees thought they were working for Apple.

As noted by Reuters, there is precedent for protecting unique interior designs of retail establishments. The Supreme Court granted similar protection to a chain of Mexican restaurants in 1992.

How the trademark might affect Apple competitors like Microsoft and Samsung, which have generously borrowed ideas from Apple's Store designs, is unclear. Suing a competitor for infringing on an entire store's trade dress would probably be of dubious value to Apple, according to Ars' Tech Policy Editor Joe Mullin. The true test of a possible infringement claim is whether or not customers were duped into thinking they were in a real Apple Store, and the prominent non-Apple logos would probably suffice to survive such a claim.

Enlarge/ This Samsung store that opened in Australia last year bears a striking resemblance to Apple's store designs.

Though the trademark only gives Apple trade dress protection in the US, securing the trademark could be useful in garnering similar protection in other countries in order to help stop the kind of fake stores that popped up in China.

Promoted Comments

Well I was going to try to get in before people completely overreacted, but oh well. Here's the entirety of the trademark.

Quote:

The mark consists of the design and layout of a retail store. The store features a clear glass storefront surrounded by a paneled facade consisting of large, rectangular horizontal panels over the top of the glass front, and two narrower panels stacked on either side of the storefront. Within the store, rectangular recessed lighting units traverse the length of the store's ceiling. There are cantilevered shelves below recessed display spaces along the side walls, and rectangular tables arranged in a line in the middle of the store parallel to the walls and extending from the storefront to the back of the store. There is multi-tiered shelving along the side walls, and a oblong table with stools located at the back of the store, set below video screens flush mounted on the back wall. The walls, floors, lighting, and other fixtures appear in dotted lines and are not claimed as individual features of the mark; however, the placement of the various items are considered to be part of the overall mark.

Note that you pretty much have to copy most of this description to be in violation. It's not like Apple claims to have trademarked the wooden table. If you've done all of the things above, you've pretty much copied an Apple Store.

Dafuq? Sorry to Apple, but that looks like stores around the world from all kinds of companies from Tokyo to Berlin. What if Apple decides that they look to much like the Apple Store? Will they then sue them all?

Well I was going to try to get in before people completely overreacted, but oh well. Here's the entirety of the trademark.

Quote:

The mark consists of the design and layout of a retail store. The store features a clear glass storefront surrounded by a paneled facade consisting of large, rectangular horizontal panels over the top of the glass front, and two narrower panels stacked on either side of the storefront. Within the store, rectangular recessed lighting units traverse the length of the store's ceiling. There are cantilevered shelves below recessed display spaces along the side walls, and rectangular tables arranged in a line in the middle of the store parallel to the walls and extending from the storefront to the back of the store. There is multi-tiered shelving along the side walls, and a oblong table with stools located at the back of the store, set below video screens flush mounted on the back wall. The walls, floors, lighting, and other fixtures appear in dotted lines and are not claimed as individual features of the mark; however, the placement of the various items are considered to be part of the overall mark.

Note that you pretty much have to copy most of this description to be in violation. It's not like Apple claims to have trademarked the wooden table. If you've done all of the things above, you've pretty much copied an Apple Store.

Dafuq? Sorry to Apple, but that looks like stores around the world from all kinds of companies from Tokyo to Berlin. What if Apple decides that they look to much like the Apple Store? Will they then sue them all?

Possibly. It's not clear if an infringement of trade dress of a store design has ever been argued in court. Other stores are welcome to skirt right up to the line, though, as long as they don't cross it.

As we noted in the article, though, the bar for trade dress is typically whether or not a store "confuses" or "tricks" a consumer into thinking it's really an Apple Store. As we noted, a lawsuit in most circumstances is probably unlikely. But for stores like those that got shut down in China last year, Apple would have a clear cut case.

Well I was going to try to get in before people completely overreacted, but oh well. Here's the entirety of the trademark.

Quote:

The mark consists of the design and layout of a retail store. The store features a clear glass storefront surrounded by a paneled facade consisting of large, rectangular horizontal panels over the top of the glass front, and two narrower panels stacked on either side of the storefront. Within the store, rectangular recessed lighting units traverse the length of the store's ceiling. There are cantilevered shelves below recessed display spaces along the side walls, and rectangular tables arranged in a line in the middle of the store parallel to the walls and extending from the storefront to the back of the store. There is multi-tiered shelving along the side walls, and a oblong table with stools located at the back of the store, set below video screens flush mounted on the back wall. The walls, floors, lighting, and other fixtures appear in dotted lines and are not claimed as individual features of the mark; however, the placement of the various items are considered to be part of the overall mark.

Note that you pretty much have to copy most of this description to be in violation. It's not like Apple claims to have trademarked the wooden table. If you've done all of the things above, you've pretty much copied an Apple Store.

Even reading the description it sounds like my local ANZ bank branch...

Well I was going to try to get in before people completely overreacted, but oh well. Here's the entirety of the trademark.

Quote:

The mark consists of the design and layout of a retail store. The store features a clear glass storefront surrounded by a paneled facade consisting of large, rectangular horizontal panels over the top of the glass front, and two narrower panels stacked on either side of the storefront. Within the store, rectangular recessed lighting units traverse the length of the store's ceiling. There are cantilevered shelves below recessed display spaces along the side walls, and rectangular tables arranged in a line in the middle of the store parallel to the walls and extending from the storefront to the back of the store. There is multi-tiered shelving along the side walls, and a oblong table with stools located at the back of the store, set below video screens flush mounted on the back wall. The walls, floors, lighting, and other fixtures appear in dotted lines and are not claimed as individual features of the mark; however, the placement of the various items are considered to be part of the overall mark.

Note that you pretty much have to copy most of this description to be in violation. It's not like Apple claims to have trademarked the wooden table. If you've done all of the things above, you've pretty much copied an Apple Store.

Have you not been in a Microsoft Store? They have everything that is described here, but you know that you are in a Microsoft store, not an Apple store. In short its an irrelevant trademark, much like their patents.

It seems pretty stupid that this kind of thing can be trademarked at all. Surely the trademark on the name Apple and their logo are sufficient. If those are being used, the store is infringing, no matter the layout. If it's called Computer Land and the Apple Logo isn't used for the store itself (on displays of Apple products should be ok, within reason), then no problems.

Have you not been in a Microsoft Store? They have everything that is described here, but you know that you are in a Microsoft store, not an Apple store.

Yes I have. And as everyone and their mother has noted, it's a rather obvious rip off of the Apple Store. So it does tend to highlight how copying that list gets you a pretty close copy to an Apple Store. I don't know what Apple plans to do with the trademark. Maybe it's meant to just scare off other retailers from closely copying the design. But as the article notes, trademarking a store design is not without precedent.

Maybe on the color scheme and use of flattop tables. Did you not the parts about architectural glass, floating staircases, and placement of service areas? no, you just jumped to conclusions based on failed understandings of the trademark system itself without even reading the full text of the claim.

Have you not been in a Microsoft Store? They have everything that is described here, but you know that you are in a Microsoft store, not an Apple store.

Yes I have. And as everyone and their mother has noted, it's a rather obvious rip off of the Apple Store. So it does tend to highlight how copying that list gets you a pretty close copy to an Apple Store. I don't know what Apple plans to do with the trademark. Maybe it's meant to just scare off other retailers from closely copying the design. But as the article notes, trademarking a store design is not without precedent.

Basically, this protects apple from outright clone (fake) stores, though for now only oficially in the USA. That said, a US trademark is valid prior art when applying for similar international protections.

MS uses a very similar aesthetic design, but it's both dramatically simpler and somewhat cheapened in comparison, and lacks the use of structural glass and clear stairs and other items key to the trademark, not to mention it;s CLEARLY logo'd out the wazoo with MS's own trademarks and impossible for someone to actually confuse. This is clearly just for copycats, not other legitimate businesses.

Well I was going to try to get in before people completely overreacted, but oh well. Here's the entirety of the trademark.

Quote:

The mark consists of the design and layout of a retail store. The store features a clear glass storefront surrounded by a paneled facade consisting of large, rectangular horizontal panels over the top of the glass front, and two narrower panels stacked on either side of the storefront. Within the store, rectangular recessed lighting units traverse the length of the store's ceiling. There are cantilevered shelves below recessed display spaces along the side walls, and rectangular tables arranged in a line in the middle of the store parallel to the walls and extending from the storefront to the back of the store. There is multi-tiered shelving along the side walls, and a oblong table with stools located at the back of the store, set below video screens flush mounted on the back wall. The walls, floors, lighting, and other fixtures appear in dotted lines and are not claimed as individual features of the mark; however, the placement of the various items are considered to be part of the overall mark.

Note that you pretty much have to copy most of this description to be in violation. It's not like Apple claims to have trademarked the wooden table. If you've done all of the things above, you've pretty much copied an Apple Store.

Have you not been in a Microsoft Store? They have everything that is described here, but you know that you are in a Microsoft store, not an Apple store. In short its an irrelevant trademark, much like their patents.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way might be to note that Apple Stores have a very recognizable format that has been in place since 2001, MS started opening stores in 2009 with an interior design that appears nearly identical to that of Apple Stores. Apple noticed this and filed for a trademark the following year, which has now been granted.

I'm not saying that's what happened but the design similarity and the timing seem...suspicious, no?

You know the reason why the Microsoft stores are styled somewhat like Apple Stores? They hired away the architects, consultants, and even the engineering firm that use to work on the Apple stores. Same people, same styles.

Note that you pretty much have to copy most of this description to be in violation. It's not like Apple claims to have trademarked the wooden table. If you've done all of the things above, you've pretty much copied an Apple Store.

I don't really understand what the point of all this money spent on the trademark was for then. Has anyone in the US in the 10 years of the Apple Store copied them in a way that the trademark would have mattered?

The only stores I've seen that would have violated this are Apple resellers overseas, who sometimes make up for the lack of real Apple Stores by aping them very closely.

Note that you pretty much have to copy most of this description to be in violation. It's not like Apple claims to have trademarked the wooden table. If you've done all of the things above, you've pretty much copied an Apple Store.

I don't really understand what the point of all this money spent on the trademark was for then. Has anyone in the US in the 10 years of the Apple Store copied them in a way that the trademark would have mattered?

The only stores I've seen that would have violated this are Apple resellers overseas, who sometimes make up for the lack of real Apple Stores by aping them very closely.

I imagine they did it specifically because of those copycat stores that got shut down in China. It's unlikely to happen here, but they probably got the trademark in the US first because A) They're a US company so it kind of makes sense to start there, and B) I'd be willing to bet that it's easier to get an original trademark (IE without prior art) in the US than in most other places. Now that they have the US trademark, they can use it as prior art in other countries where copycats are more likely, and (hopefully) speed along the process of getting the foreign trademark.

Okay, trade dress 101. (IANAL. IAALS. TINLA)Apple has applied for and received a "trade dress" trademark over a very distinctive and specific design. That design is embodied in the summary (though the summary does not reflect the full effect). Trademarks, service marks, and trade dress are designed to do one thing, under the Lanham Act: prevent consumer confusion.

Keeping that in mind, trade dress is a very narrow level of protection. The case that probably best summarizes trade dress protection is Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. 505 U.S. 763 (1992). In that case, Taco Cabana alleged that Two Pesos had copied the "look and feel" of their restaurants. Although Taco Cabana had the typical "brightly colored Tex-Mex wall-crap" associated with most Mexican restaurants, they also alleged that Two Pesos had copied architectural details and business ideas such as a "24-hour patio cafe," overhead doors that opened a secondary dining room to the patio dining area, double drive thru windows, open kitchens, similar menu boards, brightly colored canopies and murals, similar floor plans and brightly colored buildings, etc. So while none of these features were independently unique, the combination of them all together, the court found, invoked imagery of "Taco Cabana," much the same way that the total summation of Apple's store features invoke imagery of Apple.

The court found that by copying practically every aspect of Taco Cabana's "look and feel," that Two Pesos was intentionally copying Taco Cabana in an attempt to profit off of their design by confusing customers or advertising such a similarity that customers would not distinguish between the two businesses. This is pretty much like the "fake Apple store" issue, where a consumer might not realize that he's walked into a "not-Apple" store.

So no, I doubt Apple's going to go out and sue Gap or even Microsoft for use of postmodern architecture and style. You have to copy pretty much every aspect of a business to such a degree that a reasonable consumer would be confused by the copied design. It's not the same thing as the iPhone/Samsung issue, because product design has to show a secondary meaning (i.e. that consumers automatically associate rounded rectangles with the iPhone. I know, they should have lost. Different issue, though.). Trade dress of stores is held to a different standard, but either way, Apple's going to have to show that a reasonable consumer walking into a competitor's store might have thought they were walking into an Apple store. That's going to be tough to prove, even with Microsoft, which plasters distinctive Microsoft trademarks everywhere to say, "Hey, we're hip and cool, like those other guys, but we're totally not those other guys!

Well, either there is only ONE way to design a store that works great, then it deserves a patent. Or there are lots of ways to design a store, then the patent doesn't matter.

I don't understand the problem here, really. While I don't like Apple as a company they surely have a way to drag the competition kicking and screaming into coming up with their own, new and hopefully better ideas. I really can't find much wrong with that.

If you copy an apple store point by point, except for deceiving people into thinking it's actually an apple store, how exactly does apple suffer? this is not only a useless patent, it's a bad patent. there's no reason apple should be able to put this constraint on others. imitation, in this sense, is a form of flattery, not trademark infringement!

I handled trademarks for over 10 years for my company, having created and policed multiple word, image, and service marks. Granted we were a B2B play, but trademarking a store design is brilliant on Apple's part, and totally stupid on the part of the PTO. At this point, if I were Apple, I would trademark their casual work environment to include the allowance of jeans and t-shirts, open or closed toe shoes, suits and business casual in an open corridor designws for optimum employee production. Also throw in the cafeteria with great chefs, custom coffee blend/roast, discount structure, fitness center and Apple games. Combined they have a mark-able work environment worth protecting.

Then I'd sue the shit out of Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Samsung USA for infringement and make them wear fucking suits. For sure Google, MS, and FB would collapse if their people were forced to come to work in suits everyday. Can you imagine the children at Facebook coming to work in suits? They'd all quit and join Apple in a heartbeat. Or start their own companies...

Why Apple is not doing this is inconceivable! Worse then engaging in a land war in Asia!

Yeah, it's absolutely outrageous! No? It's only Apple that gets this kind of reaction? What a surprise.

It's not that it's only Apple, it's that it's only Apple that gets press coverage for doing so. The tech press editors choose to highlight such actions from Apple knowing that readers will react, and thus fulfilling the part of their job that requires them to promote web traffic/comments/etc.

So, the site wins, the editor wins, the writer wins, we commenters/readers win (we get to vent) and everyone is essentially happy. Well, maybe no the PTO officer that awarded the mark because if (s)he reads these comment boards, I have to believe that being called and idiot is not pleasant, even if it's by strangers.